Billy the Elephant and the Los Angeles Zoo

I failed to write about the issue of Billy the elephant's fate before the Los Angeles City Council made its decision. And I'm ashamed of that.

As many of you know but as some may not, animal advocates of one stripe were pitted against self-described animal advocates of another stripe in the battle over expansion of the Los Angeles Zoo's elephant exhibit. The advocates with whom I agree wanted the exhibit shut down and Billy sent to a sanctuary, where he could roam more freely, more naturally, and--very importantly--with more of his own kind. The other side wanted bunches of money (tens of millions) poured into expanding the exhibit/habitat and for Billy to stay where he is.

As Born Free USA reported yesterday,

Instead of listening to a legion of world experts on elephants with hundreds of years of combined experience and expertise, 11 Members of the Los Angeles City Council decided today that they would cling to the vague promises of LA Zoo authorities and continue the controversial and meager Pachyderm Forest (now to be completed at a staggering cost of $42 million). . . .

Born Free USA joined L.A. City Councilmember Tony Cardenas, Lily Tomlin, Bob Barker, and the dedicated L.A.-area activists who called for Billy to be removed from the L.A. Zoo and delivered safely to PAWS in San Andreas, California. There he could enjoy the rest of his life in a 20-acre environment, associating with other elephants in a facility that, along with The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee, sets the gold standard for the care of captive elephants already in the USA.

Celebrity and non-celebrity activists alike came out of the woodwork to argue their positions. Zoo support from people like Jack Hanna did not surprise me. And sanctuary support and consideration for Billy's best interests from people like Bob Barker did not surprise me, though it did make me love Barker even more. (But like others, I was disappointed in longtime animal advocate Betty White's unwavering support for keeping Billy in the zoo.) And just how big a fight was this? Just how serious were advocates about getting Billy into a sanctuary? Serious enough that a couple days ago, Barker offered up $1.5 million of his own money to make it happen--an amount that, as I understand it, would cover Billy's relocation a few times over.

But here's how the zoo responded to Barker's generous offer: "Billy’s home is at the Los Angeles Zoo, not a distant location that is both inaccessible and unaffordable for the working families and schoolchildren of Los Angeles." Forgive my bluntness, but who the hell cares? This isn't supposed to be--or shouldn't be--about what humans can take from Billy; it should be about what is best for Billy and other elephants. Like I said the other day, despite all the posturing and pretty words, this really is all about the humans--about what humans want as opposed to what elephants need and deserve. Zoos' concern isn't for the elephants. Their concern is for themselves and the money they can make off the elephants.

-More after the jump-

And in the end, the council wasn't swayed by what was best for Billy and other elephants either. They ruled that this exorbitantly expensive expansion should continue and that Billy should stay in an environment not as well-suited to his needs as a sanctuary would be because--well, because humans are selfish jerks who think it's more important that they be able to see and profit from elephants than that those elephants actually be happy and healthy.

What Marc Bekoff wrote in The Emotional Lives of Animals (2007) about Maggie, an elephant in an Alaskan zoo, is fitting in Billy's case too:

She walks about aimlessly . . . and gets no exercise or social companionship. It's obvious even to zoo officials that she needs help, but their answer was to spend more than $100,000 to build a treadmill for Maggie that she didn't even use! Tex Edwards, director of the Alaska Zoo, has said, "I think we're trying to do the right thing." But there is nothing "right" about keeping an elephant in these conditions; doing so ignores the wealth of information about the social and emotional lives of elephants. Why not send Maggie south to a sanctuary so that she can live in a more suitable climate, with friends? That is the humane and "right" thing to do. (156) [Note: Maggie was moved to a sanctuary in November 2007, and her relocation was paid for by--yes, you guessed it--Bob Barker.]

Watch the following video from In Defense of Animals on the problems inherent in keeping elephants in zoos and on Billy's case in particular. It's a well-researched, well-presented, professional look at the situation, covering the psychological and physical harm caused to elephants in zoos, the financial costs, the depressing statistics on how long (or rather, not long) elephants live in the Los Angeles zoo and other zoos, the cities that have come to their compassionate senses and shuttered their elephant exhibits, and the sanctuary options for such elephants when exhibits close. Read more about the problems with keeping elephants in the L.A. zoo here (not updated yet since the vote), and read more about elephants in zoos in general throughout the Help Elephants in Zoos site. See also HelpBilly.org.

Photo of Billy courtesy of Last Chance for Animals.